All human life is sacred. Society has a moral obligation to protect human life, not take it. The death penalty harms society by cheapening the value of life. Allowing the state to inflict death on certain of its citizens legitimizes the taking of life. The death of anyone, even a convicted killer, diminishes us all. Society has a duty to end this practice which causes such harm, yet produces little in the way of benefits.

is this gonna be another whiny thread about that rabid animal that you insist has some kind of talent, the value of which exceeds the life of the guard he conspired to kill in cold blood, and for which he subsequently received the death penalty?

For some crimes there has to be more punishment than just spending the rest of your life behind walls, with free room and board, as well as medical care.

In exchange for removing the death penalty I propose two alternative punishments:

1. Total solitary: No human contact. you can have books, you can have some TV, but your food enters through a slot, and if you need to be taken out of your cell, you are rendered unconsious so you dont remember seeing anyone. You get to live and die alone.

2. You have to break a 200 lb rock, using a small rock hammer. After you are done, you get to put it back together using crazy glue. Once done, you get a new rock. Repeat ad nauseum. No work, no food. In this scenario you at least get human contact, as long as you keep breaking/fixing the rock.

In both cases a noose is made availible if the inmate wants to check out early.

This would be reserved for those cases deemed potential death penalty cases only. 1st degree murder, etc.

All human life is sacred. Society has a moral obligation to protect human life, not take it. The death penalty harms society by cheapening the value of life. Allowing the state to inflict death on certain of its citizens legitimizes the taking of life. The death of anyone, even a convicted killer, diminishes us all. Society has a duty to end this practice which causes such harm, yet produces little in the way of benefits.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I think there are some crimes, so offenses, that are just so horrible, that just locking them up can't express society's outrage adequately.

Take Charlie Manson (Please!) He murdered 8 people in an attempt to trigger a race war which he thought would result in him being left in charge after millions had died. And something to do with Beatles' music. One can only imagine the level of drugs you have to take where that becomes a logical thought process, but he went there.

When he got the Death Penalty, he told the prosecutor, "YOu are only sending me back where I came from", because he had spent most of his life in prisons. But the prosecutors had the satisfaction of knowing he was going to be executed.

Until some soft-headed people decided to commute his sentence.

So now he's in his 70's, he gets fan mail from other sickos, he got to torture the families of his victims by making them show up at his parole hearings.

My other favorite. Richard Speck. Killed 8 nurses, sentenced to death. Commuted. Got to appear at parole hearings until he died of a heart attack. After his death, a video appeared where he was having sex with his cellmate, smoking dope and saying "If they knew what a good time I was having in prison, they'd let me out."

NOw, I'll agree, our system has flaws. Public defenders should get the same resources prosecutors get with investigators and researchers. Prosecutors and cops who break the rules to get wrongful convictions should be dealt with, harshly.

But as long as we have Gacy and Dahmner and Speck and Manson and Bundy, we need a death penalty.

All human life is sacred. Society has a moral obligation to protect human life, not take it. The death penalty harms society by cheapening the value of life. Allowing the state to inflict death on certain of its citizens legitimizes the taking of life. The death of anyone, even a convicted killer, diminishes us all. Society has a duty to end this practice which causes such harm, yet produces little in the way of benefits.

All human life is sacred. Society has a moral obligation to protect human life, not take it. The death penalty harms society by cheapening the value of life. Allowing the state to inflict death on certain of its citizens legitimizes the taking of life. The death of anyone, even a convicted killer, diminishes us all. Society has a duty to end this practice which causes such harm, yet produces little in the way of benefits.

All human life is sacred. Society has a moral obligation to protect human life, not take it. The death penalty harms society by cheapening the value of life. Allowing the state to inflict death on certain of its citizens legitimizes the taking of life. The death of anyone, even a convicted killer, diminishes us all. Society has a duty to end this practice which causes such harm, yet produces little in the way of benefits.

Click to expand...

Capital Punishment is not about "an eye for and eye".... or, not more about that, rather, than it is about self- judgement and cleansing the land... It is, sadly, sometimes more ethical to put someone to death than to have society suffer for their existence... We no longer have the prison island... and our current mainstream seems incapable of handling stressful days behind the wheel of their vehicle... Are we punishing individuals for successfully becoming what we have greatly influenced, if not aided and abetted? Most likely.

Im for capital punishment. Sometimes the only way to pay for a crime is through the shedding of your own blood. In fact, my complaint isnt that we dont have capital punishment, but that there arent more crimes that qualify in our system.

For example, Robbery used to be a capital crime. For very obvious reasons when you realize someone who robs, say your cattle from you, when you need that cattle to provide for yourself and your family ends up giving your family a death sentence. Rape is another one that should be capital in some circumstances

Of course, that means more work for me. Which is the on really bad part of this moral question.

I'm opposed to capital punishment. No matter whether it would be ethical if carried out ideally, it is moot because it is not carried out ideally. Rich people can save themselves from it and too many people have been exonerated of the crimes which put them on death row. How many haven't been exonerated who should have been? To some it doesn't matter. To me it does.

I'm opposed to solitary confinement. Driving a person out of his mind is inhumane.

Secure, austere prisons ... that I would find acceptable. I know that a lot of liberals would find austerity inhumane, so I don't know the right solution.

And that's where this lay person sits on the subject of crime and punishment.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!